Talk:Clover (creature)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article Name Change (PROTECTION OF PAGE AND VOTING)

Calling the film "Cloverfield (creature)" seems to indicate that the creature is actually named Cloverfield. Seeing that there is no cite that I have seen confirming this, and, just as well, the first sentence of the article notes that the being is "unidentified," I personally don't see why this article is named such. Shouldn't the article's title be changed? I think it should be called "Cloverfield Monster," without the parenthesis. --Is this fact...? 07:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't like "Cloverfield Monster," but I have been wondering if we shouldn't move it to something like "Creature (Cloverfield)" or "Monster (Cloverfield)". Nither of those are particularly good, either. The problem is that given that the thing doesn't appear to have any proper name, there's really no perfect place for the article to go right now. Using a generic noun with (Cloverfield) after it seems to have the appropriate vagueness. The producers tend to refer to it as 'creature', but most third-party sources are calling it a 'monster.' We may as well flip a coin, really.

I should also add that I don't hate where the article is now, either, though. Like I said, naming an article on something that doesn't have a name is frustrating. -- Vary | Talk 11:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The movie's opening "titles" say "US DOD... Multiple sightings of case designate "Cloverfield"". Best we can go with. Will ^(talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that refers to the case itself or the code name of the camera, not the monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.244.213 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This has already be discussed in previous sections of the talk. It seems the general concensous is, no it isn't an ideal title, but since we have nothing better, there isn't sufficient motivation to move it. "Cloverfield monster" is certainly a likely candidate, but without an extremely reliable source, such as an official designation from the creative property holder, we may as well leave it where it is until such a source comes into existence. A sequel looks rather undoubtable, and I should think chances are pretty good it will get a name within the fictional universe then. -Verdatum (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "Cloverfield (creature)" seems fine.--Kondrayus (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, The citation provided in the intro which apparently backs up the (not so fact) fact of Matt Reeves stating it is the name of the creature is not mentioned in the citation at all. He only explains why it is the title of the movie, it was a codename named after a Paramount property which stuck with the project, There were other codenames such as Slusho and Bertha.

However my point is not this, but the fact that the name of the creature is not Cloverfield but in fact the name of the military operation assigned to tackle the creature, as the film stated itself "Case designated Cloverfield", ha, not only this but the director itself has stated it is applied to the military operation, if you would be so kind to read the [2] citation in the intro I have provided. Hows that for an official designation from the creative property holder. Now good day to all, and this is why the article should be The Cloverfield creature. JTBX (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I also question the quality of the source given, but that is discussed below. I don't feel The Cloverfield creature is an appropriate title for this article either. For one thing, there are two "creatures" in cloverfield, the main creature, and the parasites, both of which are discussed in this article. For another thing, it sounds too official. "The Cloverfield creature" is not it's official name either. I think it is much better to just leave it as Cloverfield_(creature) and wait for more sources. Eventually the creature will get a name, and at that point the page will just have to move again, so I'd like to see a stronger argument for why your name choice, or any other, is optimal and signifigantly better than it's original name. -Verdatum (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The parasites come under the umbrella of the creature, as it is the main topic of the film. Now the source from ign does not state anywhere that Cloverfield is the name fo the monster. In the source I provided, from IMDB, it clearly states that Cloverfield is the name of the military operation designated by the U.S. Department of Defense, this is also shown on the title card. It has nothing to do witht he creature's name. Therefore it is unknown, and therefore it is better to call it The Cloverfield Creature.

HOWEVER I am not insisting on this title, what I am insisting on is that the title SHOULD NOT BE Cloverfield (creature), simply because this shows that the name of the creature is Cloverfield, which is not the case.

Let me put this into a better prospective. The War on Terror in Iraq is known as Operation Iraqi Freedom by the U.S. Army and its leaders. The subject of the war, in terms of what the war is being waged on, can be Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Now if I renamed the articles of Iraq or Saddam Hussein "Operation Iraqi Freedom" It would make no sense. So why, I ask, should it be allowed to name this article the military operation?JTBX (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom are two seperate things. Will ^(talk) 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the Operation Iraqi Freedom is part of the global War on Terror. JTBX (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of details of your example, the reference provided supports the fact that there exists public belief that Cloverfield is both the designation of the event and the creature. If you read the archives, you will find that I agree that Cloverfield (creature) is not an ideal title. But since concensus (and please actually take the time to read it) has not been reached on a superior title, it should not be changed based on your personal opinion. please stop reverting. I do not believe a sufficient superior title exists at this time to warrant a move, and concensus had been reached before you arrived to meet this. Even if you are absolutely correct, it's quite alright for the article to have an imperfect title for a couple days until concensus has been reached. continueing to edit without concensus can be interpreted as WP:VANDALISM. -Verdatum (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article leads one to believe that the name of the creature is Cloverfield. Vary's example naming convention "Noun (Cloverfield)" seems like the best idea. It should be changed. Louis waweru (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On the Cloverfield DVD featurette "I saw it! It's Alive! It's huge!", a couple of animators referred to the monster as "Clover". Also on the same featurette, one image of the monster was titled "Clover: Overall" and a composite breakdown of a scene showed the monster's skin as "Clover Skin". I vote that we name the film "Cloverfield" and the monster "Clover" like the CGI animators did.--954music (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Actually, due to recent events, I lean in favor of the same thing. Numerous sources have come about involving the production staff referring to the monster as "clover", and the online community seems to have picked up on this as well in discussing the creature (though I may just be imagining this). I still wouldn't be surprised if they gave it a new name in a sequel film, but until then, I think "Clover" is more appropriate than implying that the creature is named "Cloverfield". Naturally, it would have to be something like, Clover (creature) or Clover (monster). Though I don't like "monster" because it has some POV issues. I would like to see some more comments to establish concensus for such a move first. -Verdatum (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfieldmonster.jpg

I am removing the link to Image:Cloverfieldmonster.jpg from the article as it was uploaded with absolutely no context. It doesn't say where it came from. Beyond the signature of "Reilly" it doesn't name the author. There is nothing to establish it as legitimate. If it is genuine concept art, and someone can update the contents of the image with accurate information, it may become suitable to be readded to the article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does have a clear picture of the monster so why not add it? The other person forgot to add a source and I don't think its fake. It be good for Wikipedia. Johnny542 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

per WP:V, "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." this is especially true of images because of copyright issues. Even if you wish to add it, a bot will just remove it in a week or two because its license is not properly attributed. If this is official concept art, then it is copyrighted, and possibly does not belong here. If it is fan art, it doesn't belong here because it violates copyright issues involved in derivative works. -Verdatum (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless we get either a source for the art, or permission from the artist, this picture needs to be removed. Please don't put it back until one of those two pieces of information is obtained. --Ishmayl (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of the creature revisited (shudder)

Looking at the last day's edits, the article previously designated the creature as "cloverfield" with an explicit edit comment not to mess with this. Now the name has been changed completely with an entirely new comment not to change this new decision. These are the rumblings of a classic edit war. Inline comments to accept the current revision are classically ignored. Consensus needs to be met in the discussion section and we need to just accept the fact that until a source is uncovered we aren't going to have a straight answer. This is not sufficient reason to flipflop the name of the thing every friggin' day. Personally, I really don't care what it's named, I'm just getting sick of the pointless edits. -Verdatum (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The director has confirmed that it is indeed the monster that was designated Cloverfield. (linky). Will ^(talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I added a reference to this in the article proper. As far as I'm concerned this reference trumps anyone elses' opinion. It'll probably be safe to remove the inline comment after a few weeks. -Verdatum (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon. I altered the reference citation to address the specific line that supports "Cloverfield" as the designation of the creature. Unfortunately, it appears to be an interpretation of the author, not a declaration from the creator. Still in such cases, I believe this is a sufficiently reliable author/article that his interpretation (even if mistaken) is sufficient to show a widely accepted belief. Once again, if the creature is later given a more official name, we can update the article accordingly at that time. -Verdatum (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

...Don't you think someone should have discussed before moving this article??? -Verdatum (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Verdatum, I think you're confused. The statement about the name of the creature is from the interviewer (Scott Collura), and in response (see my comments in a later section of this discussion page), the creator of the film clarifies that the name "Cloverfield" is like the name "Manhattan Project" in that it's the name of the project associated with the event and the phenomenon, not of the object of the case file (which in the case of the Manhattan project as "the atomic bomb" and in the case of this movie is unknown). The lead paragraph REALLY needs to change. -Harmil (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war, creature name

In response to the change comment "READ THE GODDAM CITATIONS IN THE GODDAM INTRO!!!!!! IT IS NOT CALLED CLOVERFIELD!!!" Please remain civil. Please read the discussion history, including the archive. This topic has been discussed repeatedly. From what I see neither argument is concrete. Unless I see a reference where the director says, "no no no, the creature's name isn't 'Cloverfield'..." I don't accept the fact that the designation of the incident being cloverfield has any baring on the creatures name one way or the other. The conclusion reached was to leave the article title as is until new sources are uncovered that explicitly name the creature. You are completely justified in your opinions, but others are completely justified in theirs. In these cases, the practice is to use WP:CONCENSUS. Thank you -Verdatum (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We know it isn't called Cloverfield. But that's the only name given to it; see also Ben Linus used to be at Henry Gale (Lost) for about six months after we knew it isn't his real name, becuase that was the only name used. Will ^(talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We could say the same about Thirteen (House) as well - it's a psuedonum, but no other sources have surfaced for any other name, so we keep it like that. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC (which says "no definite articles"). Will ^(talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no debate that there's no other name available. It's just that we need to be clear that there's no source that states that this is the name of the creature in the film or in interviews. Only interviewers have made this claim, and it's not been supported by interviewees. Wikipedia isn't the place to attempt to settle the debate over the name (though if we can find a good source for the fact that there is a debate, that would be something to note). All we know is that Cloverfield is the name of a case file at the DoD and that it deals with a monster that attacked NYC. -Harmil (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The current name seems to be the more logical one. I saw the film and the creature has no name whatsoever. The intro should say something like "The Cloverfield monster is the generic name commonly given to the creature that, etc. etc.". There is absolutely no need for an edit war on that matter. Wedineinheck (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll for the title

This is really lame, but just so we can stop the arguments once and for all...

While I understand the motivation for doing this as a form of compromise, I'm not sure I agree with using a straw poll in this situation. Those participating should read WP:POLLS. Honestly, I need to read it more carefully myself, and I'll reserve any stronger opinion until I've had a chance to do so. I suspect the best solution would be to take this to Requested Moves but I also need to read up on that as I have little or no experience with it. -Verdatum (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield (creature)

1. Other violates WP:COMMONNAME AND WP:NC. Will ^(talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
2. We've been through this plenty of times and have always found that there's no good reason to move the page. -- Vary | Talk 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Cloverfield (creature) is fine. We just have to clarify in the intro paragraph that it's the name of the case file, and not the creature. -Harmil (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A title that is not Cloverfield (creature)

1. For my above reasons, and because of general "WAAAAH WAAAAH Its Called Cloverfield because Wikipedia says so!" on forums everywhere.

Here's a quick recap of my view:

Please read the citations I have provided in the intro. The director has stated that the name Cloverfield is designated by the U.S. Department of Defense to the military operation. Sure if you want to have an article on the operation go ahead, but the creature itself is known throughout the internet to not have an official name. Also see the title sequence in the film "Case Designated Cloverfield".

I understand that a sufficient title is required on an article such as this where an official title has not been announced. But that does not mean a lie is used.

Henry Gale was sufficient because it was a name given to the character. And at that point in time it was the name people thought was official. But later his identity is revealed to be Ben Linus so it was changed accordingly.

Cloverfield isn't a codename or alias of the monster, let alone an official title. It is the military action taken upon it. Therefore the creature is unknown, and The Cloverfield creature suits it, or any other title for that matter that is not Cloverfield (creature).

The parasites come under the umbrella of the creature, as it is the main topic of the film. Now the source from ign does not state anywhere that Cloverfield is the name fo the monster. In the source I provided, from IMDB, it clearly states that Cloverfield is the name of the military operation designated by the U.S. Department of Defense, this is also shown on the title card. It has nothing to do witht he creature's name. Therefore it is unknown, and therefore it is better to call it The Cloverfield Creature.

HOWEVER I am not insisting on this title, what I am insisting on is that the title SHOULD NOT BE Cloverfield (creature), simply because this shows that the name of the creature is Cloverfield, which is not the case.

Let me put this into a better prospective. The War on Terror in Iraq is known as Operation Iraqi Freedom by the U.S. Army and its leaders. The subject of the war, in terms of what the war is being waged on, can be Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Now if I renamed the articles of Iraq or Saddam Hussein "Operation Iraqi Freedom" It would make no sense. So why, I ask, should it be allowed to name this article the military operation?

But it is clearly obvious it will be kept. Oh well. And if the title Cloverfield (creature) wins, then of course I have no choice to support it, even if an official title emerges, I will make sure it is kept at Cloverfield (creature), because that is what the film apparently designates it? Right? :) JTBX (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, your argument about War on Terror is covered by WP:COMMONNAME. I reccomend reading it.

No one currently argueing disagrees that "Cloverfield" is the designation of the military operation. Proving that it is the name of the military operation does nothing to positively prove the appropriate designation of the creature. They could both be called Cloverfield.

As far as we know, the creature designation is undefined within the fictional universe. I believe both sides also agree with this. We can say that there are published sources that claim Cloverfield is the name of the creature. and according to WP:COMMONNAME that is good enough.

The article name does not exlicitly show that the name of the creature is Cloverfield, though admittedly, by convention, it does suggest it. per WP:COMMONNAME that is acceptable for now. Both sides are in agreement that it is not the best title. But again, we can't pick one that is good enough to bother changing the article.

I am willing to concede that the current lead sentence should be softened. It authoritatively acts as though Cloverfield is the name of the creature, when it should instead declare that the creature does not appear to have an explicit designation, and for this reason, the creature is referred to by some (per the given reference) as "Cloverfield".

Your comment about making sure it is kept "Cloverfield (creature)" is alarming, but I will assume you only expressed it because you know that sarcasm is really helpful. -Verdatum (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a reliable source, unfortunately. There have been several bad experiences personally with IMDB, in particular, it said that Davros would be in the first series finale - such a thing didn't happen. Will ^(talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Afraid you lost me there. Where did I claim to be using imdb as a source? -Verdatum (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) nevermind. Threading confusion. Regardless of the quality of imdb as a source, there are many sources that declare Cloverfield is the name of the military operation designated by the U.S. Department of Defense, I think that's veering from the point. -Verdatum (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why can't this article just be called "The Cloverfield Monster"? --Is this fact...? 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Male or Female

Does anyone know if Clover is a male or a female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.82.87 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

no one knows. not that important either but it's possible, since it's amphibious and might contain similiar DNA to other creatures, it might be able to change sexes like many frogs do.ClOvErFiElD92700 (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But J.J.Abrams uses HE in almost all of his sentences, during interviews.SoundBlast (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also if you hear closely you can hear Hud screaming "Yeah, yeah they got him." and also the pilot scream "He's down he's down,"right before the monster attacks the helicopter.SoundBlast (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, most people have an unconscious tendency to refer to animals as male. It might not really mean anything.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah unless hud checked out clover's junk and on that note ever notice how people seem do always refer to dogs as "she" if it is an unknown dog and they don't know the gender and cats too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.1.137 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be female. I remember noticing a vulva-like organ underneath a tail when it was swatting a helecopter out of the air. Just speculation though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.24.71 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

know what it is

I know what that creature is its called a Gwaka it said on.

• http://cloverfield.wikia.com/wiki/Monster

Thats whats its called. God gave me a life that is something right and god is the one i need, God is the only one that is righteous —Preceding comment was added at 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nop that name was created by the fans just like the names "Cloverfield","Slusho", "A Terrible Thing", "Big Barney", "Mr. Grumpypants" and "Clover"SoundBlast (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Barney is a funney name for it including Mr. Grumpypants those are funny names. Gene Autry rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice right under the picture, it says species unknown?--Kondrayus (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I think this article needs a picture from the movie, since the toy does not look a lot like the monster in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyahnyah (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Thx FOr editing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyahnyah (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the toy looks nothing like the real monster. For example in the movie you can clealy see that Clover walks on his Proximal phalanges, while on the toy he is portrayed as walkng on his paws/palms.SoundBlast (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah but on the toy you can move his fingers so that he is walking on his knuckles. 199.44.26.229 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It still has a lot of differences though. the air sacs are not that big and high up.comment added by Nyahnyah (talk • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.158.252 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and they are not red either.SoundBlast (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Nyahnyah raises a valid point. The toy is an interpretation of the original designs from the movie. Still, I really like the image of the toy as it's much more clear. This is OR, but toy designers are given excellent reference material (these days) and all merchandise is generally approved by the production company. I propose restoring the screencap from the commercial as the main image and moving the image of the toy to the section that discusses the merchandise. Seems like a good compromise to me. -Verdatum (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Okay, the beast isn't named Cloverfield. I mean, come on. The Case designate is "Cloverfield" but the monster is the monster from the case. So the least we can do is correct it to say "The Cloverfield Monster" since it is not directly named in the film or the source provided on lead sentence. 24.76.185.79 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are creating a new section for this, as there are like 3 sections above that would be completely appropriate for this argument. Anyway, I think the lead sentence should be softened to make it appear that "Cloverfield" is merely a common name and not an official name. However, I disagree with your argument that it is not directly named in the source provided. The quote is right there. I believe it to be an improper assumption on the part of the author, but it still is representitive of a commonly held public belief. I think I'll try rewriting it this evening. -Verdatum (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of this article is simply wrong and should be changed immediately. It clearly represents either misread sources or original research. There are two sections in the cited source:

"'Cloverfield' is the case designate. [...]"

and

As for that "case designate" reference, anyone who has seen the clips from the film knows that "Cloverfield" is the case name that the government has assigned to whatever or whoever is doing all that destruction in New York.

Notice the lack of quotes around this later paragraph. It's not a response, but speculation on the part of Scott Collura, the interviewer. It's wrong, as far as I can tell. "Case designate" uses the following definition of designate that I'm getting from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Appointed but not yet installed in office: the commissioner designate.

To call something "case designate" implies that this is a name assigned temporarily to the case, but that it is not final. At no point in the film or interviews has anyone in a position to know stated that this is the name assigned to the creature. Never. Not once that I've seen. Wikipedia has created this idea, as far as I can tell, from whole cloth and one interviewer's speculation. -Harmil (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further note: in fact, the interviewee responded to that sentence, and clarified: "In the way that the Manhattan Project was the name of that program, that's what this is. [...] It's the way that this case has been designated. That's why that is on the trailer, and it becomes clearer in the film. It's how they refer to this phenomenon [or] this case."

So the event – the phenomenon – is referred to as "Cloverfield", but just as the name of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not "Manhattan," so too the name of this creature is not "Cloverfield"... at least not as far as we know or have been told. -Harmil (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First, forgive me, I read your response a little to quickly and thus wrote this response both as a response to proposals to change the article name and to change the references to the creature within the article. Still doing so hopefully preemtively answers questions that obviously follow.

I accept all your arguments. We have no statements from the film, manga, or form anyone speaking in an official context on behalf of the production company. I further agree, the reference cited is the interpretation of the article author, which I likewise believe to be a simple mistake. The clarification of the term is also nice to see, though I don't believe it explicitly recants or contradicts the initial quote. The definition you provided for the term 'designate' is quite interesting, I've not heard that before; you may very well be right about it. Regardless, we are not arguing the official or unofficial nature of the name of the case. We are argueing what to name the article, and how to refer to the creature within the article (most specifically within the lead section).

We are seeking "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (As defined in WP:COMMONNAMES). If people commonly call it cloverfield, then the article should be called cloverfield_(somethingOrOther). The interpretation quoted from the Collura article is presented as a resource to demonstrate that Verifiable, independant sources with some measure of reputability have demonstrated the belief that the monster can be refered to as "Cloverfield". I agree, it's not a very strong one, but no one has attempted to provide a reference to show that some other name is more common. Furthermore, if such a reference is found, I personally believe it needs to be a signifigantly more solid source. My reasoning for this is that if it is only slightly stronger, and that is used as justification for a page move, the next person on the opposing camp merely needs to find an ever-so-slightly stronger reference demonstrating some other common name, or back to the original. This process can cycle any number of times and I really don't wanna see the page bouncing all over Wikipedia like that; especially for something as trivial as a minor fictional character (as opposed to, for example, something where a misname causes a group of people personal offense).

I do agree that we should not imply (without new information) that "Cloverfield", or anything else, is anything more than a common name used by the public to refer to the creature; in fact, I think this should be explicitly pointed out in the article. I believe the body of the article uses "the creature" or "the monster", the point is, those sections are sufficiently generic, it's just the lead we are arguing. The only reason I haven't done so yet it lack of motivation. That lead section is a minefield, and it's not fun to walk on eggshells when editing to come up with something that everyone will be satisfied with. If someone else takes a stab at it (or already has), I'll be overjoyed. Else, I'll give it a shot eventually. I hope I've done a sufficient job of presenting my position. -Verdatum (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that Hasbro, as a licensed merchandiser for the production refers to the creature as "Cloverfield Movie Monster", "Cloverfield Monster", and "Cloverfield monster" here. -Verdatum (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SIZE ONE MORE TIME!!!!

OK everyone until we have some good references or J.J.Abrams tells us himself, no one add anything about Clovers height.SoundBlast (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we can say that it is the size of a skyscraper (it says on the official site)? 24.76.185.79 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

For the time being I have changed the opening paragraph from Cloverfield to The Cloverfield Monster because I think it is a fair description of the creature. The entity itself is not called "Cloverfield." Cloverfield is the name of the area where the film takes place "formally known as Central Park" according to the opening of the film. If anyone has any objections please inform me. --Illustrious One (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You still have not addressed the core problem: your new lead paragraph now states with authority that the DoD has named this creature "The Cloverfield Monster" when no such information has been given to us in the film or cited sources. Here's what I'd suggest:

"'''The ''Cloverfield'' creature'''"<!--Please be prepared to back up any changes to this with sources other than the IGN interview where the *interviewer* claims that the name of the creature is Cloverfield.--> is the [[fictional monster|fictional creature]] that first appeared in the [[2008 in film|2008]] [[monster movie|film]] ''[[Cloverfield]]''. Though some journalists have referred to the ''creature'' as "Cloverfield", no one associated with the creation of the film has confirmed that this is what the creature is called.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://movies.ign.com/articles/841/841636p1.html |title= Exclusive: Cloverfield Director Speaks! |accessdate= 2008-02-13 |last= Collura |first= Scott |date= 2007-12-14 |quote="In the way that the Manhattan Project was the name of that program, that's what this is ... it's not a project per say. It's the way that this case has been designated. ... It's how they refer to this phenomenon [or] this case." -Matt Reeves }}</ref> In the film, the name was designated to the case file by the [[U.S. Department of Defense]] after an unspecified period of time. After the film's release, the monster became the subject of a four-part [[manga]] series, ''Cloverfield/Kishin'', which serves as a prequel to the film. The creature of ''Cloverfield'' was originally conceived by producer [[J. J. Abrams]] during a trip to [[Japan]] and was designed by artist Neville Page.

That should resolve the confusion sufficiently. -Harmil (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there's been no dissent, I've gone ahead and moved this to the article. -Harmil (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear?

The article currently says "The creature made its first full appearance in Cloverfield, where it was seen rampaging through New York City and being combated by the United States military resulting in a nuclear attack on New York by the US Air Force in an attempt to destroy the creature." in the appearances section. There's a citation, but it doesn't actually link to anything, it just mentions Matt Reeves. My question is this: when was it stated this was a nuclear attack? I know it's implied, but we never see the explosion and we never actually hear any character state that the attack will be nuclear. Plus it seems unlikely that the camera would have survived a nuclear explosion, as close as it was to ground zero. Is there any actual source where we can read or hear Reeves makingthis claim? Toroca (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Moved topic to the bottom per WP standards.) Thanks. Editors who are unfamiliar with WP policies have repeatedly added this claim in but no source confirming the attack to be nuclear has been offered. It's an arguable claim, so per WP:V it does not belong in the atricle until such a source is uncovered. -Verdatum (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the nuclear thing. I'm no expert,but even on the off chance that the camera did survive a nuclear strike,I don't think the actual footage on the tape necessarily would have. Electromagnetic waves and all. I mean,if I'm wrong on that,please correct me,by all means. Plus,if it had been nuclear,Rob wouldn't have been alive to report the creature still active afterward. I'd say it was most likely massive carpet bombing. Just my two cents,though. SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983

I always heard the line about letting Manhattan "go" was "if we have to." IOW, at that point, they stop worrying about collateral damage and bring in the big guns, not that they LITERALLY level all of New York City. It would utterly idiotic and impractical to think the government would be suicidal enough to annihilate the country's, if not the world's, leading city when Clover was finally confined just to Central Park. Not to mention how many air strikes that would entail to destroy everything on the island. The commentary and the movie itself suggest that the explosion seen at the end kills the monster, and it was obvious conventional since the camera survived and Rob and Beth managed to talk for a moment. As far as I could see, it was a MOAB that finally killed Clover, certainly not a nuke.--Brad Rousse (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More then one

I found this website, http://cloverfield.wikia.com/wiki/Multiple_Monster%28s%29_Theory. I was thinking we should add it. --4444hhhh (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikia is generally not considered a Reliable Source for infomation as anything beyond a starting point to find other Reliable Sources. However, I believe the Cloverfield Wikia project is linked to by the main Cloverfield article. If not, it would probably be more appropriate. Otherwise, including this link would merely be including one out of thousands of locations for Cloverfield Theories and conjecture. Nothing makes it any better than the many others. -Verdatum (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That hypothesis is really, really ill-supported and relies almostly completely on speculation. I do not think that it is appropriate to even mention it with such flimsey information, especially in light of the toy release information. - Majin Gojira (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Inline comments

I'm removing the inline comments asking not to change the name of the creature. They are being made into a mockery; they may as well say "Don't change the name of the creature away from whatever it's currently named without also changing this inline comment asking everyone else not to change the name of the creature away from what you think it should instead be named". If someone wants to change it without checking the discussion history or giving a super-duper good justification via change comments, added discussion, or added references, then we can just revert it like any other vandalism. Still, I personally don't give a care what the page names the thing, this is the lamest conflict I've yet been involved in, possibly among the lamest I've seen on WP. -Verdatum (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Clover" toy

I think we should get a new image of the toy because that one is an early build and the new one has more detail and the red air sacs.SoundBlast (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you find a newer image released by Hasbro? I agree that it would need to be updated, but Wikipedia only takes official information Darknessdownfall (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the new picture of the updated toy on the Hasbro Site Cloverfield Monster Toy. I am not sure it should go into the article or not. What do u guys think? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Navy and AF?

Are we sure the US Navy participated in the New York attack? I can't really ID any aircraft for sure other than the B-2. Wouldn't just "aircraft" suffice if we're not 100% sure? Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the only reference here is the initial work of fiction, I think your point is valid. I changed it to the more generic "US Armed Forces" which should be a sufficiently indisputable claim to use a primary reference. -Verdatum (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind, my change made the sentence rather redundant...Aircraft isn't a bad compromise, but I don't adore it enough to do it myself. But yeah, I still think Navy and AF is potentially overly specific. I think in a previous revision, an editor identified the exact model aircraft used, which is certainly overly specific. -Verdatum (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neville Page Interview

IN a recent interview, Page acknowledged the little arms. He said that they were esophaguses, but the scenes with them eating were cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.185.79 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"A recent interview" is not verifiable. Could you please provide reference information so that we can read/watch/confirm this information? -Verdatum (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I was reading this the other day. The URL is http://tagruato.blogspot.com/2008/03/tagruato-interview-cloverfield-lead.html --64.142.36.76 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is an uncommonly informative article. I have integrated the esophagial info into the article using this reference. -Verdatum (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaping shifting and the Aliens

first off when i watched the movie twice sometimes the legs would be a knife or praying mantis leg and then a t-rex leg in another scene, also in one scene i saw a fish tail on the monster that wasnt there the rest of the movie. on another note does anybody notice that the parasites Are just like the aliens? you know aliens R rated quadriligy, parasites that bite you and then you explode? so the monsters original dosent mean the plot has to be? any responses

71.208.56.219 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your entire comment is Original Research, I fail to see what it has to do with maintaining and improving this article, which is the intended purpose of this talk page. -Verdatum (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Horrible "manga"-related edits

It looks like someone went through this article and tacked on very questionably relevant manga-related trivia after the fact here and there, while at no time taking care for grammar, structure, flow, etc. Needs a good lookover. -Jack Vermicelli 98.209.134.64 (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that content. Having not actually read the manga, I sorta figured plot elements in the manga would be more explicit and less debatable than in a chaotic suspense film. According to concensus, the original work of fiction is an example of an acceptable primary source for information, so long as the information is not contentious. I figured it was only a couple sentences, and it didn't border too terribly on issues of WP:PLOT, so I didn't feel the need to remove it. The information presented in the "Cloverfield Manga Offers More Clues" is also acceptable, as it's a relatively decent secondary source. Personally speaking, if someone were to remove the plot elements taken from the manga, I wouldn't cry. -Verdatum (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a better source than the one that is currently in there. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Half of the stuff on this page is GARBAGE

Obviously no moderaters are going to fix anything, unless someone wrote that the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man came from Mars and began destroying Yellowstone Park. Nothing said about the manga on this page (as far as the whole "injections" and all that) is even confirmed. Meaning, it has no business being on here. I help run an actual Clover site, and we have someone fluent in multiple languages that translates the manga FOR us, and puts it in English. The progress made so far hints at NOTHING that is said on these pages, which basically concludes that what is supposed to be a factual site (here) is now filled with speculation. Also, the Monster isn't a "BABY", so stop citing that. The monster was meant to be portrayed "LIKE a baby", as it isn't used to being on land. Everyone forgets JJ himself saying "he's been there, at the bottom of the ocean, for thousands of years". That's the problem with a mysterious cult film, and a wiki that gets millions of visitors a day... any person can post whatever they want, and it just goes unnoticed. Don't check Wikipedia for your Clover info. Check CloverfieldClues for news, or the Cloverfield Despoiler for your info. 75.137.173.160 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are basing your concerns about the article on your own original research, no? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a public wiki, and this article is unprotected at this time. That means you have the exact same powers to edit the content of this article as any moerator or admin. If you are certain the content from the manga is false please feel free to be bold and remove it. The article points to numerous quotations from members of film production that say that the creature is supposed to be a baby. If you know of a quote from those same people saying that they were all speaking metaphorically, I would be very excited to know about it. If the source is reputable and you don't wish to bother doing so yourself, I'd happily update this article accordingly.

Despite recieving millions of visitors, changes to pages such as this one do not go unnoted. It is possible to configure user preferences (as I have done for this article) to cause the server to post an alert on the top of the web browser window every time a page is edited. The more popular a page is, the more people set up similar watches, such that vandalism to popular pages is reverted within about 5 minutes. Vandalism and other content that violates policy is often reverted by the very next user to load the page. If you visit a page and see something that looks like vandalism, you can check the page history; more often than not, the vandalism will have been committed recently, within the last edit or two. But sure, if you don't like Wikipedia, I for one promise not to force you to ever use it. -Verdatum (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Marine monster?

Well lookin carefully the only thing that looks like marine are the monster's gills, anyone knows why they made such a mistake?... I mean, look at the feet of that thing, not good for swimming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.10.235 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources say it is a marine animal, merely that it had been living dormant underwater for thousands of years. If you aren't a marine creature and you wake up underwater, then all the more reason for you to be pissed off. Still, this is all Original Research, and thus has very little to do with the state of the article. -Verdatum (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC).

Then why it says Aquatic in the infobox?. Please edit that. I'm too lazy :P.

Good point, I agree. -Verdatum (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

MOAB

I removed the mention of the MOAB even though there is a reference. The biggest reason is that the reference author didn't actually seem to understand how it worked (describing it as a FAE bomb, when it is a massive-ordnance weapon) which leads me to believe that the author arbitrarily chose the MOAB becaused he thought it sounded plausable. The MOAB would have been less effective against a single surface target than the B-2 bombing we saw in the film. Plus, the MOAB has very special means of delivery which would not be ready for use on American soil (plus the logistics of getting 1 or more of the only 15 or so we have to NYC would be formidable). Plus there were multiple explosions (at least two) of conventional size...which indicates some sort of intense bombing with multiple weapons (most likely heavy carpet bombing with MK 84s or something similar). For these reasons I removed the MOAB and left the more general term of "bombs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.238.85 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and after digging a little I've found claims that the author got his idea that it was a MOAB from a blog...which would invalidate the citation.

Move to Clover (creature)

In case anyone missed it, the discussion about this move was revived in a previous section (up top). The change comment made on the move says the name "Clover" was made official in the DVD. I don't believe this is completely accurate; as I understand it, staff merely used the name clover themselves in the DVD commentaries and such. But regardless, I'm still OK with this move. At this time, it appears to be a more appropriate common name for the creature. I don't think anyone will, but if you disagree, I'd appreciate it if you discussed it here and reach concensus first before boldly reverting the move. -Verdatum (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnny452, You should really discuss before moving an article. Your chosen move to The Monster/Clover (creature) is ungood. First, "The Monster" does not follow naming conventions for a non-proper noun. It should be "The monster". Second, using a slash in an article name does not imply an alternative name, it implies a hierarchical structure. In other words, "Clover (creature)" becomes a child page to The Monster. I have explained above why I am satisfied with the move to Clover (creature), could you please provide your position and justification and allow it to meet concensus before moving pages around? -Verdatum (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, sorry about that. Johnny542 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Chatterbugs

One or more editors keep on adding the fact that the parasites are refered to/known as "chatterbugs". I spent a bit of time searching for the origin of this fact on the web. No results jumped out at me except a possible suggestion that it is just a neologism invented by the fanboards. So in either case, I believe the information is dubious and does not belong in the article without providing a verifiable reference. Anyone wishing to restore this fact should either list such a reference, or in the least, reply to this comment with a justification of why you feel it belongs. -Verdatum (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's a fan term coined by somebody on Brad Johnson's forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.185.79 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "production notes"

This is referenced throughout the article but I'm not sure it's citable. It seems to be someone's self-published semi-article about the film, without a stated author or indications of where the information comes from. Thoughts? Jgm (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of confusion and controversy about this reference. If you look back in the discussion archives, it was specifically dicussed quite a bit. I think we came to the compromise to accept it, as despite not having credits, there isn't sufficient reason to doubt it being what it claims to be. -Verdatum (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE change the name?

Yes, I've read all the discussions above. The fictional monster, in the Cloverfield universe is not named Clover. It its universe, it does not have a name (yet revealed). The name Clover certainly does not fit under guideline use common name as it is fan-boy cruft and not what the typical user would ever consider the actual name of the monster. Cloverfield (creature) or a variation would be much better. Certainly the first paragraph can explain that the creature's name is not really Cloverfeild?

I propose vote or Admin assistance to end this silliness. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. The name clover is backed by references from the production staff (not fanboy cruft!) and I am seeing the name regularly used to reference it in online discussions (call it fancruft if you like, but it is the COMMON part of "common name"). I am seeing very few people refer to the creature as "Cloverfield". The justification of the article name is backed up with references in the main article. For your argument to be more convincing than the standing argument, you'll need to provide stronger reference than just pointing to WP:UCN.

The first paragraph does explain that the creature's name is not really Cloverfield. So if "Cloverfield" is not a commonly used name to refer to the creature, and it's also not the creature's real name, what is your argument again? -Verdatum (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

By calling it Clover, the producers aren't saying that is its actual name. If the creature had an official name, either the movie would have been named after it, or the producers would have released the name during an interview. I mean, if the producers walked around saying "The Cloverfield Monster", then they would sound pretty silly. Clover is simply an abbreviation that they're using right now.--Kondrayus (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kishin

The paragraph in the character design section related to Cloverfield/Kishin is just getting confusing. I don't think it exactly relates to "character design" in the traditional sense either. It's begining to get into issues of WP:PLOT. Personally, I'd be fine with removing the paragraph altogether, but as a compromise, perhaps it should just be trimmed. Since I haven't read the manga (nor do I really intend to), perhaps someone else should take a stab at cleaning the paragraph up? -Verdatum (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting Ridiculous!

Okay, obviously this whole article name argument isn't going to stop. Let's just go back to cloverfield (creature) since no one really knows his name and stop arguing over something as worthless as a name that doesn't nead to be changed in the first place.--Kondrayus (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, why would we do that when the people who made the movie called it Clover? It isn't called cloverfield, its called Clover. If you don't like that, its not really anyones problem. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Because in the movie universe, the creature's name isn't Clover. What the animators nick-named the monster is immaterial. We should you the movie name of the creature, or the most common name for the creature. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the only name this creature has ever been called or been given. To call it something else would be to please us, but would not be accurate to the little we know about what it is called. If something comes up, we can of course change it, but till then we have to work with what we know.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It explicitly says within the article that the creature is not named Clover in the fictional universe. No where in Wikipedia policy or guideline does it say that the name of the article must match the name of the creature within the fictional universe. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. In essence, it says that if the producers call it "Clover", the fanboards call it "Clover", and everyone else except nitpicky knowitall types who like to interject into conversations with "actually, Clover is not the real name of the creature, it's just a nickname the production staff used to save time" call it clover (and no i do not mean to infer that Kondrayus is this type of person) then Wikipedia Guidelines say we should call it Clover. Since Clover is more commonly in reference to another topic, we should call it something like, "Clover (creature)"...and so that is what we do. -Verdatum (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Update, this isn't intended to cast judgement on any side (especially since we are currently discussing changes, not editwarring, which is good), but I'm pleased to report, the Nth revisitation of this question has inspired me to add this article to the fabled halls of Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Enjoy. -Verdatum (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As a partial solution, we should consider using the name "Clover" in terms of film production, but while discussing plot or other in-universe topics, refer to it simply as "the monster". What do you think? --Knulclunk (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All this whoo haa is getting silly, seriously:

• The name cannot be decided. There are just not enough official sources. Naming it Clover is just ridiculous, production staff always have nicknames for projects but that doesn't = official. Infact some could have called it Clovie or something.

• The monster is slightly informal for a title and especially Monster, as it is not a proper noun. The latter is definitely incorrect. So,

• The title should be Creature. The creature is just that, a creature. But to clarify this,

• It is featured in Cloverfield which makes (Cloverfield), (film creature) , (film) or another variation eligible for inclusion after the main title (which is Creature). Therefore, the best titles are:

The Cloverfield creature or Creature (Cloverfield). I have already pointed out this stuff before (up top) but was banned for reverting the page. I will not take part in this article's page edits regarding title information and will simply post my opinions here. Comment/reply if you wish. JTBX (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whale Picture

It's not the remains of it! It's a picture of eaten whales! I really think it would be a good idea to remove it, seeing as how 1. It's not dead and 2. THEY'RE WHALES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.2 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

-,- ABRAMS STATE That the Monster was killed and that is the picture. Read the article and Reference 7 please. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 05:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead?

I hear many things about how the monster is dead. Well, what about the whisper? Are we going to let this garbled radio message go unheard? Will someone explain all this to me?--24.161.50.140 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the whisper must be played backwards to make sense, we cannot use the movie itself as the reference, as this would be synthesis. If you can find a Reliable Source that discusses the ending whisper, then it would be appropriate to add to this article. We must enforce these policies strictly to avoid the page degrading into a mass of fan speculation and argument. -Verdatum (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I added the Picture. People who watched the movie assumes that the monster is still alive at the end, though a matter of fact really no one knows but the writers and the director. In a Interview with Abrams he does state that the monster was killed(Fully Reliable) but then when u bring in consideration the end of credits transmission saying "Its still alive"(not fully reliable)......there is a little confliction unless some other event happened right after the movie OR believe Abrams himself and that the monster is actually dead. If both Abrams and the end credits are true then there was some other event that happens after the movie that kills the monster, which "THE" event has not been introduced yet by anyone officially. But Like I said the only Official source that claims that the monster was killed is by Abrams Himself. Even though you have to consider even if the monster was killed the manga points out that there are others in the 4th volume. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 05:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still think it's too early to say if the monster is actually dead or not. For all we know Abrams could be just trying to screw with our heads. Also, that picture of Clover's "dead body" is actually a picture of dead whales, it's not Clover. [Son of Kong|Son of Kong]

About the Picture....READ THE RESOURCE POSTED IN THE CAPTIONS!!!! Its not whales and Abrams even says its the remains indirectly. -,- Also if you read the manga it points out there is others. So if they bring another one in a different movie, people will think its the same one. If u read the movie article Paramount is not sure to even make a sequel yet. IF they do it might be in 2009 or 2010. With that said that means the only way we can get info is the Cloverfield "ARG" or from the producers them selfs about the monster. Anyways Abrams barely comes straight forward on info b/c he always leaves us hints and speaks in riddles. With this case he directly says/states it was killed right after the movie.

I think we should keep the picture on the article because seeing as soon as it went up, people never read about the part that it was killed , what Abrams stated, so they thought it was still alive. But people also did not read that its not the only one of its kind so like i said earlier they think its still alive and will appear in the next movie. Pointing this out to people who comes to this article will clarify things in the future. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 05:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe with Wiki being a Encyclopaedia I really do think that the information that is contained in the article should only come directly from the movie. As someone said before Abrams could of been either telling the truth, or trying to mislead the public so to not leak any plot information for any future films. As it stands I personally think that "The fate of the cloverfield creature is of yet unknown". As that is what the movie leaves us to belive. MattyC3350 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well movies never closes anything until u see the ACTUAL dead body of the subject being talked about on film. Even said The Movie Cloverfield ITSELF has been "Is it true or not." Since Transformers came out. Nothing is so sure until Abrams states it b4 the movie came out and every word he said b4 the movie came out was deamed official like Slusho and Turango as 1-18-08 and Ethan Haas. Before the movie came out everyone believed it was Godzilla but Abrams said it wasn't. People thought then he was trying to mislead us but in the end he didn't same as Ethan Haas. He did create the monster did he? So if he wants to kill off his own monster that he designed then it is final by his word seeing he did create the movie and all. Plus he did state that the next film will be about the mother or father OR EVEN the pre events that lead up to Cloverfeild.

Also Info from movies are not even accurate them selfs, if you look at the Saw films THERE IS TONS you have to consider when putting stuff in the article if ur just getting it off the movie. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

MattyC3350, you may wish to look at WP:WAF. Information contained in a Wikipedia article should only use the movie itself when it is to report uncontroversial claims. Things like the fate of the creature, a highly controversial claim, should instead extend to secondary sources, such as the interview that is currently cited. It is not true that "the fate of the monster is yet unknown." That is what is known as an omniscient claim; one that acts as though the encyclopedia is certain that no one in the entire universe knows some fact, such as the creature's fate. Stick to facts that are Verifiable. Namely, (in paraphrase) "according to an interview, Abrams says it's dead." such claims are nice because even if he recants and says he was just kidding, it is still true that "according to an interview, Abrams said it's dead". -Verdatum (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's something one could speculate. If the end of the film mentioned 'It's still alive', then it's possible another one of these creatures emerged. Maybe the cries of the first one awoke another. Time, and a sequel, will only tell.--The Scourge (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scourge there is not permanent/reliable source that says "Its still alive". They said to hear it u have to play it play backwards. That is what is speculative because there is no verifiable source that actually proves thats what it said yet. Someone else recording it then putting it on there is not verifiable because they could of edited the final copy or some sort. The monster being dead is official not speculative because the creator of the monster said it is dead and that is fact. I hate the monster for being dead also I know but if it is coming from Abrams there is nothing we can do but listen. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For people who think the article on Clover being dead is Fake here it is Rolling Stone Article. Plus for people who think its whale remains or Clover's food, POST A CITED SOURCE THAT SAYS IT IS WHALE REMAINS. If not then we will keep reverting your edits and consider them as vandalism and original research.--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I Also Want to Add the Monster USES FEEDING TUBES so that means Clover can not eat whales and leave remains, for it to eat the whales its has to swallow it WHOLE.

It Quotes in the Article,

"Clover's design includes appendages on his underbelly, described by Neville Page as an "elongated, and articulated external esophagus with the business end terminating in teethlike fingers". They were designed as a body part to relate the scale of human prey to the huge scale of the creature. The scenes from the movie where Clover sucked people into these "feeding tubes" were cut from the final edit, but the fourth and last chapter of Cloverfield/Kishin shows how the "feeding tubes" work."

So its ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to be remains of a whale that the monster ate.....SO STOP ASSUMING IT IS!!! --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 01:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, take it easy on the caps lock. People here can read pretty well. Secondly, I know what speculation is, hence why I pointed out the possibility of another monster emerging with the military confusing the second one over the first. But that's what it purely is: speculation. I cannot convince others my theory is a fact until we get a sequel, and a sequel could have any plot in mind.--The Scourge (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering you can see the face and jaw of the left whale, and that (I would need to find this, but I've seen it before) the original photo of one of the whales, pre-photoshop, was found, I'd say it's a fair indication that the picture is of dead whales. Also, as proven by the end of the movie, the feeding tubes aren't the only means for Clover to eat. Additionally, the way the Rolling Stone question was phrased, J.J. Abrams could have been talking about the night vision picture where battleships and aircraft are attacking something in the water, or the picture of the giant pool of blood in the water, or it could even be that he was just answering the portion of the question about the monster dying, ignoring or missing the part about the website. 70.56.216.122 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats the problem there is NO and I repeat NO cited sources that says its a whale. So far the article, clear or unclear points out that its the remains. Ever since the picture went up on 1-18-08 people automatically assumed it was whale remains without a credited source. So far Rolling Stone is the only source that is creditable that actually tells what is in the picture itself. Everything else without proof is original research until proven. Also the one with the aircraft doesn't show what is being attacked and if it was clover if it was unaffected like in the movie with the other artillery. And the pool of blood, we do not know and again its assumption. The only thing physical in the pictures is the carcass. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 06:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also no source saying that it is the monster, is there? Perhaps the caption should read "photo of carcass from 1-18-08 website"--Knulclunk (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Based off the Rolling Stone article it indirectly does say that the carcass is the monster......I have a question for u guys....why are you guys in self denial about the monster? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is in self-denial. It's a matter of using a source that's credible enough to know that it is indeed the monster's remains. But because there is major debate regardless of what's been said, the image should be removed all-together until another credible source can prove that the image is of the monster's remains. It would probably put this to rest.--The Scourge (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this is a resonable compromise. We really shouldn't have too many copyrighted images in this article anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a whale. http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/kprtlagrafix/1-18-08_11.jpg I didn't combine the picture or add the text, for the record. To Mithos, the Rolling Stone article, like I said in my earlier post, doesn't single out the whale carcasses, it could be referring to the military attack or the giant pool of blood, both of which could imply that the monster is killed. 70.56.216.122 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ITs a whale when they first made the picture BUT you are missing that this is a "ARG" and what they intended for the final result was WAY DIFFERENT. You can make something else with a empty coke can can you, then why can you with a picture, Esspically on Paramounts behalf. I know what you posted earlier but the military strike picture does not prove ANYTHING, just only proves "something was attacked". And the Blood You can assume it was a whale the bleed from under the ocean OR that something big was injured but it shows NOTHING on what was bleeding. Now the carcass, like I said earlier IS THE ONLY picture that showed something HAS DIED. No other picture shows anything has died...or not yet at least and what at least. IF you look at the blood picture, I can infeere that maybe someone from a fishing boat dumped fish blood into the water. Why I dont know but you see what I mean original research. But when They say something has died, what proof can you say something has died? A Blood spill or rotting flesh on the beach? You get where I am coming from? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It's ok to admit when you're wrong, and I don't understand why you're being so stubborn. It's supposed to be evidence that the monster is huge (considering the release date of the picture on the website), huge enough to bite giant chunks out of the whale. If you want to be taken seriously, use a spell check, quit using caps, and calm down. Let's use Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is that they used dead whales with photoshopped bites taken out of them to represent dead whales, not to represent a monster on a different scale, with a different color, and different geometry. 70.56.216.122 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I do use spell check and 2. its because I really dont really care so I dont fucking use it. 3. I admit that I am stubborn BUT( I can use CAPS all I want buddy) coming from your point of View...WHAT THE FUCK WAS ABRAMS TALKING ABOUT THEN!? I been following this "ARG" the EXACT day Transformers came out and I been editing this article ever since then. Try being here with the Ethan Haas Shit going around During June and July then ull understand putting 2 and 2 together and not making damn assumptions and looking for damn cited sources CONFIRMING whats actually going on. Hey When Abrams said That Ethan Haas had nothing to do with it...WHO THE FUCK BELIEVED HIM until August 1? . The Picture itself was released the Day the Movie Came out in theaters. Ever considered that it was released to clarify what happened after the movie? Yes It could be food BUT THAT is the only picture on the site Confirming POSITIVELY on that SOMETHING DIED. Could be whales could be Clover Hell It could be a fucking Polar bear painted black the washed ashore the hell I care BUT SOMETHING DID DIE from looking at that picture. <<<< I am not pissed just getting my point clearly ^-^ but ever since this ARG started I been sick of assumptions esspiacally for a movie I like. Like I said before, things that are said, you need 2 find a source to prove it. Rolling Stone ACTUALLY got official word about ONE PICTURE on that site which no other resource did and u tell me it might just been talking about a picture with invisible text saying "THIS IS A WHALE IN THIS PIC" Ill look for more sources but right now since June 2007, Rolling Stone is the only source that OFFICIALLY gotten word about the content on the 1-18-08 site itself. There is my 2 cents for ya ^_~ Plus dont comment on my typing its horrible I know but I really dont care knowing that i am getting to the point across --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First. It's actually more of an ARE, or Alternate Reality Experience, since the whole "game" had very few game elements. The Dark Knight has an ARG, Cloverfield had an ARE. Yes, it could be a black polar bear...but it's a dead whale. There's a dead whale in the picture, and that's the fact, Jack. Rolling Stone did not specify a picture. You decided to point to the whale picture, not Rolling Stone. You say that you're sick of assumptions, but you're assuming that the picture of what is a dead whale is supposed to represent the dead creature. You're assuming that Rolling Stone was referring to the whale picture. You have no source that eliminates the picture of the military attack or the pool of blood as that which the magazine referred to, and no source specifying that it is the whale picture. Yet, you demand a source that proves that it isn't the whale picture. The picture was released on 1-18-08, you're correct, but why would the group that runs the ARE spoil the movie? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to tease the size of the monster by showing how big its mouth is, as opposed to showing its suspiciously whale-like corpse, complete with a jaw? And if they wanted to show the corpse, why not use something less identifiable as an entirely different animal? You can see the whale's face, which kind of ends your suspension of disbelief if you're supposed to think it's the monster. Since you've been following the ARE since Transformers, then surely you know this story. Matt Reeves, as a throwaway to make sure audiences knew it was a giant monster movie, dubbed the line "It's alive, it's huge" into the teaser. What happened? Internet people who read entirely too much into an innocent comment that was supposed to clarify the teaser created the "It's a lion!" mess. To put it simply, dead whale picture representing Clover's corpse = It's a lion. Dead whale picture representing dead whale = It's alive. Don't try to make things complex. It's just a game. Or rather, an experience. :-) 70.57.253.164 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Read Matty's undo edit for my last response but the point I am trying to make for everything on Wikipedia needs a source where it can be proven. Photobucket, 80-90% of its images were edited b4 posted on there. So a picture of the whale u posted earlier does not prove a single thing at all. What because its not official. If Paramount released that picture then there is no aurguement but because you are saying that because of that picture it makes the picture a whale official does not make sense. Before you assume, post a REAL Cited source. Not one that has been paint edited or photoshoped to be ur back up to a discussion it will make it worse. Like I said Abrams did point out indirectly a photo on the site does show Clover dead. Which one well you figure out but the point is ONE picture proves that he is dead end of story and if we have to show the 2 faces of the girls in fear to prove that he is dead, so be it. Blogs, Peer to Peer sharing sites where u upload content or change content like Wikipedia is not a reliable source so find something else that proves that the picture represents dead whales than just taking something from a old picture to try to make a non-exsistant fantasy monster. From my point of veiw(off topic almost), Lord of the Rings was filmed in New Zealand but "ARE" its Middle Earth. And from where you are coming from You are saying there is Elves in New Zealand than Middle Earth xD When You have a chance please read these articles, Reliable Source, Verifiable and Original Research --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 13:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kiddo, at this point, you've entirely stopped making any kind of sense. Words strung together do not a sentence make. You're not going to be convinced by deductive reasoning or common sense. The whale picture, you know, the picture of a dead whale that is only a whale and has only ever been a whale, does not prove Clover is dead. The only proof Clover is dead is that JJ Abrams said it was dead. The military attack or the pool of blood could "prove" that just as much as the Cloversnacks in the whale picture. And if you'll notice, the interviewer says "photos", not "the single photo that looks exactly like a dead whale with a bite taken out of it that was posted on the release day". I found a picture that showed that the left object is obviously a whale, and you don't like it because it's old? And like I said, I didn't combine the pictures for comparison or add the text, but the bottom picture is quite obviously unaltered in any meaningful sense. Just Google image search for "beached whale". What does this: [1] look like? It's doesn't have text, or the 1-18-08.com picture on it, does that make you happy? It's the first thing to come up on the search, and it looks practically identical to the website picture. Not satisfied? Not a reliable resource? There are literally thousands of websites that show dead, beached whales look like the one in the picture (sans bite, of course), and I have to think at least one of those websites is a reliable source. Read your own links. There is nothing proving that the whale picture is supposed to be the corpse of the monster, besides you drawing your own conclusion as to which picture was being referred to. I'm not suggesting we add a segment explaining that the whale is a Cloversnack, because I don't have proof, or else you might have a point. But since I'm not adding a section about him eating whales, you don't. My evidence may not be enough to prove that Clover ate the whale, but it's not meant to. It's meant to disprove that the whale picture is of Clover's corpse, which I think it does quite nicely. In summary...please explain to me why an otherwise well-run ARE/viral marketing campaign would use a dead whale, completed with face, shape, and jaw, to represent a dead monster that is not at all similar. If you can give me a satisfactory answer, besides "Well in the fake world, anything can happen, so why not?" I will gladly admit that I'm wrong. Explain how you can verify that the whale picture is the exact one referred to in the Rolling Stone article, without taking a massive leap of faith, and I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong. To reference Lord of the Rings, there is no Andy Serkis or Elijah Wood clamoring after the whale picture proving that it is the One True Picture, the Photo To Rule Them All. The fact is that it's more likely than not that the picture is not supposed to represent Clover's remains. That's all. Look, you obviously care about Cloverfield more than normal or advisable, which I can relate to. Why not go add in the verifiable height, weight, and biology stats of the monster and the parasites? I would, but for my lack of an auto-confirmed account at this point in time. Aren't you more interested in the fact that Clover weighs almost 6 million pounds than in the total non-fact his corpse is on the website? Or that he jumped almost 600 feet in the air to grab our noble protagonists? I'm done with this conversation, I think I've suitably proven my point, and added way too much mess to the talk page. 70.57.253.164 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well live in your beliefs. The discussion has moved from whale to speculation and I am trying to move it back to Citable source on this page. I toattly dropped the discussion on Clover remains long agoto where i am trying to get you to see that the whales ordeal is speculation. I know there is about 3-4 whales in the picture but ur looking at the picture piece by piece look at the picture as a whole. As a whole, its something dead period. No Whale No Clover just something died PERIOD. Until we get source the picture is now deamed as a Dead Animal dont even carry on replying trying to prove to me its a whale because I dont believe in speculation I believe in facts dude. Reply when u have a source about "THAT" site and sources about THAT "Picture" random sites with the original pre-edited picture is not about the 1-18-08 site its just about a old beached whale nothing more got it.Happy Looking ^-^ --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Lock?

This is getting ridiculous, I don't know if you guys agree or not but would a semi-lock help stop the vandalism by unregistered members to this article? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this a terribly severe case of vandalism. The edits, as I understand it, are in good faith anyway. The editors are not properly discussing changes, and the changes they are making are not verifiable. So we can revert the ungood changes, and make sure the revisions are justified on the talkpage. granted it doesn't work as well for IPs, but the most we can do is leave a note in their talkpage urging them to discuss and review policy. If individual IPs are violating the WP:3RR, they can be blocked. If it keeps up from a wide range of addresses for awhile, then maybe partial protection would be appropriate. Just my thoughts on the matter. -Verdatum (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally ^-^ --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3